Skip to main content

tv   U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives  CSPAN  January 3, 2019 3:13pm-6:04pm EST

3:13 pm
veterans' issues, why do you think it has been overlooked these years? caller: well, i have been researching this for five years nd the problem is pretty large-scale and has to do with t looking into other than -- host: the house is gaveling back in in the chair.
3:14 pm
commended him to the electorate of rhode island to send him to the house of representatives, how proud i am that we made a reasonable accommodation in the house of representatives so that mr. langevin, as he properly should have the ability to do, preside over the house of representatives. congratulations, mr. langevin, for your courage and your leadership and your extraordinary example. the speaker pro tempore: i thank the gentleman. the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 2, resolved, that the senate be informed that a quorum of the house of representatives has assembled, that nancy pelosi, a representative from the state of california, has been elected speaker, and that karen l. haas, a citizen of the state of maryland, has been elected
3:15 pm
clerk of the house of representatives of the 116th congress. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resolution is agreed to, and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i have a privileged resolution at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 3, resolved, that the committee of two members be appointed by the speaker on the part of the house of representatives to join with a committee on the part of the senate to notify the president of the united states that a quorum of each house has assembled and congress is ready to receive any communication that he may be pleased to make. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. . the speaker pro tempore: without objection, pursuant to house resolution 3, the chair announces the speaker's
3:16 pm
appointment of the following members on the committee to join the committee on the part of the senate to notify the president of the united states that a quorum of each house has been assembled and that the congress is ready to receive any communication that he may be pleased to make. the clerk: the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer and the gentleman from california, mr. mccarthy. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska seek recognition? mr. young: i offer a proifled resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 4, resolved that the clerk be instructed to inform the president of the united states that the house of representatives has elected nancy pelosi, a representative from the state of california as speaker and karen l. haas, a citizen of the state of maryland as clerk of the united states
3:17 pm
house of representatives of the 116th congress. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the motion to reconsider is laid n the table. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 5, resolved that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider this the house the resolution h.res. 6 adopting the rules of the house of representatives for the 116th congress. the resolution shall be considered as read. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution without intervening or demand of division of the question except as specified in sections 2 and 3 of this
3:18 pm
resolution. section 2, the question of adopting the resolution shall be divided among each of the three titles. the portion of the divided question mrs. comstock: pricing shall be debatable for 30 minutes controlled by the majority leader or the minority leader. the portion of the divided question shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and minority leader or their respective designees. the portion of the divided question comprising title three shall be controlled by the majority leader and minority leader. each portion of the dieded disposed of l be and order dated. section 3 during consideration of house resolution 6, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the chair may postponefurther consideration of the resolution
3:19 pm
to a time designated by the speaker. section 4, upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be in order to consider the bill h.r. 21, making appropriations for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2019 and for other purposes. the bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by representative lowey of new york and representative granger of texas or representative degig neice and two, one motion to recommit. section 5 upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider house joint resolution 1 making further continuing appropriations for the department of homeland security for fiscal year
3:20 pm
physical call year 2019. all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. the joint resolution shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one, 30 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by representative lowey of new york and representative gringer of texas or their respective designees and two, one motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. brady: i have a motion at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. brady moves to refer the resolution to a select committee composed of the majority leader and minority leader to report it back to the house with the following amendment. at the end of the resolution add the following new sections,
3:21 pm
section 6, not later than january 1, 2019, the speaker shall pursuant to clause 2-b rule 18 resolved into the committee of the whole house in the state of the union of h.r. 22 to amend the internal revenue code to make permanent the increase in a standard deduction. the increase in the modifications of the child tax credit and the repeal of the deduction for personal exemptions contained in public law 115-97. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and not exceed one hour equally divided controlled by the chair and ranking minority member. the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the
3:22 pm
house. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. if the committee of the whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day, the house shall immediately after the third daily order under clause 1 of rule 14 resolve into the committee of the whole for further consideration of the bill. section 7, clause 1-c of rule 19 shall not apply to consideration of h.r. 22. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. mcgovern: i have a motion at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. mcgovern moves to lay on the table the motion to refer. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to table. those in favor say aye.
3:23 pm
those opposed, no. the ayes have it. and the motion is adopted. mr. brady: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor say aye. taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen --
3:24 pm
[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
3:25 pm
3:26 pm
3:27 pm
3:28 pm
3:29 pm
3:30 pm
3:31 pm
3:32 pm
3:33 pm
3:34 pm
3:35 pm
3:36 pm
3:37 pm
3:38 pm
3:39 pm
3:40 pm
3:41 pm
3:42 pm
3:43 pm
3:44 pm
3:45 pm
3:46 pm
3:47 pm
3:48 pm
3:49 pm
3:50 pm
3:51 pm
3:52 pm
3:53 pm
3:54 pm
3:55 pm
3:56 pm
3:57 pm
3:58 pm
3:59 pm
4:00 pm
4:01 pm
4:02 pm
4:03 pm
4:04 pm
4:05 pm
4:06 pm
4:07 pm
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 230, the nays are 197. the motion is adopted.
4:08 pm
without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for one hour. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, with the purpose -- for the purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the minority leader or his designee. in this case, mr. cole. pending which time i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. i ask unanimous consent that all members be given five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks n h.r. 5 and h.r. 6. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, by 10 million vote margin, the american people entrusted democrats to run this body. it's finally a new day for this congress. in this -- and this rules package is our first opportunity to chart a new course. and a sign that we intend to run this place differently, these ideas were developed from the bottom had been up -- bottom-up. not the top-down. we asked all members for their
4:09 pm
ideas. democrats and republicans alike. we spoke to experts inside and outside this congress. from every house committee, from offices like the parliamentarian and the general council. from the progress -- -- general counsel. from the progressive caucus, the hispanic caucus, the blue dog caucus. and from outside groups engaged on these issues. we spent months vetting suggestions and came up with a final package that reflects all corners of the democratic caucus and this congress. never before has a rules package been developed like this. and our collaborative process made the final product a much stronger one. it modernizes this chamber in five key ways. first, it restores the people's voice by aligning congress' agenda with the priorities of the american people. that includes enabling this house to defend the affordable care act's pre-existing conditions coverage.
4:10 pm
setting up consideration of h.r. 1, a historic set of reforms to reduce money in politics. creating a select committee on the climate crisis, so we no longer ignore the defining issues we all face. and ending the rule to protect federal workers, strengthening representation by giving rights to delegates and the resident commissioner in the committee of the whole, and ensuring they can be appointed to joint committees. and honoring our commitment to workers by putting labor back in the committee on education and labor. second, it restores the legislative process by returning to regular order and abiding by the principle that good ideas should finally be debated and voted on again. that includes establishing a real 72-hour rule so, members of congress have time to actually read the bills they're voting on. requiring bills to have a hearing and a markup before they go through the rules committee and to the floor.
4:11 pm
and creating a truly bipartisan select committee to modernize congress and keep ourselves accountable so that this place actually works for the american people. third, it restores oversight and ethics by cleaning up washington. and it subjects the trump administration to something it has never had -- real oversight. that means making commonsense changes like prohibiting members of congress and staff from serving on boards of publicly traded companies. making sure nondisclosure agreements aren't used to prevent people here from speaking out about possible wrongdoing. providing assistance and training to help congressional offices -- officers probably protect withses -- whistleblowers and setting a policy that members indicted for serious crimes should resign from leadership roles and committee assignments. fourth, it restores budget rules by preventing members from using the debt ceiling as a political weapon. ending the sham budgetary policy
4:12 pm
of cut-go that pretends that tax cuts somehow pay for themselves. and preventing our federal lands from being given away for free. fifth, it restores inclusion to ensure congress reflects the diversity of the american people. people of all backgrounds, including women and the lgbt community. that includes banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. creating a first-ever diversity office so workers here are as diverse as the real world. clarifying the rules so that members and staff are finally allowed to wear religious head wear on the house floor -- headwear on the house floor. and requiring members to reimburse taxpayers for discrimination settlements. those are just some of the many rules changes that are included here. i'm especially proud that we have also included language that ensures the direct vote on privileged war power resolutions. and directs the house office of general counsel to explore all
4:13 pm
possible legal options for responding to the administration's attempt to circumvent congress and limit access to snap for hundreds of thousands of hungry americans. because this majority will not sit idly by as the trump administration beats up on poor people. each change is a result of a real -- each change is the result of a real exchange of ideas. an honest attempt at unrigging the rules so that the people's house actually works for the people again. mr. speaker, this rules package -- isn't some panacea that will fix all our problems. as important as it is, there is something that is even more important. and that's how we conduct ourselves day to day, week after week, and year after year. because you can't legislate civility. as chairman of the rules committee, i'm ready to do my part to institute a more accommodating process. one that gives all members a voice and brings the committee back to the days where big ideas were actually debated. where members were treated with
4:14 pm
respect. and the discourse wasn't so coarse. i'm not naive, mr. speaker. i know that even if this house elevates the discourse here, we cannot control the other branches of government. the senate will work its will. and the president may still reach for his phone to tweet insults and to name-call. but we can and we should be the example of how congress should operate. and i'm proud that this democratic majority has developed a historic rules package that will immediately help restore integrity to this institution. and i'd like to thank the office of the parliamentarian and the office of the legislative council for their technical -- legislate counsel for their technical assistance in drafting this package and their hard work and professionalism is a credit to this house. i also want to thank the incredible staff of the rules committee that spent countless hours trying to help sameable all these ideas and vet these -- assemble these ideas and vet these ideas and put this package together. this also includes language that
4:15 pm
will allow us to vote on reopening the government on day one of this new congress. bills that were negotiated in a bipartisan way with the senate, that would bring an end to the president's unnecessary and costly shutdown. not a single penny is included for any border wall. it's that simple. both sides should agree on this. no part of our government should be shut down over the president's obsession with the border wall. mr. speaker, we can rebuild this place and restore integrity again. and that starts with voting in favor of this rule. the underlying rules package and the legislation to finally end the trump shutdown. so let's get this done so we can get to work on behalf of the american people. and with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. kell: i rise as designee of the republican leader and thank chairman mcgovern for yielding 30 minutes and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.
4:16 pm
mr. cole: i want to welcome my good friend mr. mcgovern and congratulate him on being named chairman of the rules committee. he and i have been on opposite sides of the dais in the rules committee for many years, i know him as a passionate person. he and his staff have already been great to work with and i look forward to working with him in our new roles in this congress. however it is unfortunate i rise to oppose the first rule he puts frt. i know the gentleman cares deeply about the institution and wants a more open and fair process. he's call for more open amendments and debate time. it's a surprise that this resolution prvidse for limited debate in some instances, closed rules in what the democrats in the past have so fondly referred to as martial law. i understand there are justifications for these
4:17 pm
decision bus i i find it note worthy that the first measure out of the gate include those these provisions. this measure, h.res. 5, makes in order this democratic rules package and separate appropriations measures to fund the government. rules package to start a new congress is always an opportunity to start fresh and improve the institution. while i applaud certain ideas in this rules package, as a whole, the package does not rise to that lofty goal. there are some good, bipartisan ideas in this package for improving the institution but on the whole, the package reflects only democrat priorities and for that reason i will be opposing it. in the spirit of bipartisanship, i'll first point out areas of agreement. as i said previously there are some good ideas in this package and my friend from massachusetts should be applauded for including them. indeed, many of these ideas are ones republicans had previously utilized in congresses past. in the last congress we maintained the practice of
4:18 pm
requiring committees to hold a member day hearing where members who are not on that specific committee could come before the committee to talk about their pieces of legislation falling under that committee's jurisdiction. i'm gratified my democratic friends are seeking to continue that practice. we are also gratified to see that the standard for committee markup notices will be three business days. this has been the practice and i'm happy to see my friends making it official in the rules. we also support the idea of a select committee on the modernization of congress. this new select committee will have 12 member, evenly divide amongst republicans and democrats, and will be charged with investigating, studying, and making recommendations on modernizing congress. while this provision is not perfect and would have been better had it included the senate this will give the house a chance to develop and improve our processes and modernize the institution. i will have more to say on this idea tomorrow but for now i think many of my republican
4:19 pm
colleagues will certainly be inclined to support it. i would also like to point out a few additional good ideas my friends have included that we approach with a tone of skeptical optimism. first, the majority is requiring that every bill that comes to the rules committee have been the subject of aing here markup. i genuinely hope this produces thoughtful legislation. i would point out that hearing requirement is merely met by a committee of jurisdiction including a list of hearings that were used to develop that bill in the committee report. i'm hopeful the committees take this requirement seriously and hold hear this is congress directly related to the measures as opposed to hearings loosely connected through the legislation or subject matter. second, i believe many member ops both sides of the aisle support the spirit behind the consensus calendar. under this provision bills that receive 290 co-sponsors and that have not been reported out by the committee of jurisdiction
4:20 pm
can receive a floor vote. in general, republicans think this is a good idea. but we'll be interested to see how it will work in practice and if it will yield the desired results. third, my friends are seeking to exist the three-tai notice with a 72-hour notice rule. thunder rule they must post the text of any legislation to be consider opped the floor 72 hours before it comes to a vote. of course as my friend knows, legislation is sometimes posted late at night or in the early hers of the morning and i am hopeful that this will not mean a lot of late night legislating or attempts to pass bills right as the 72 hours expires. in situations where the 72 hours lands us at midnight i'm hopeful the majority will view the 7 hours as minimum and will wait to hold votes in the light of day as the american people deserve. as think pi friend also know he and i have had discussions off the floor about the impact of the provision and the rule that
4:21 pm
could impact the inclusion of minority reviews and i appreciate him working with me and the ledge -- on legislative history clarifying that provision and ensuring that the rule is in no way intended to suppress minority or dissenting views. as with the consensus calendar, we are interested to see how the provisions work in practice. now that i've let my good friend know what he got right, it's time for me to let him know where we think he went wrong. first and foremost the democratic rules package repeals a lot of critical fiscal responsibility measures that republicans have adhered to in years past. repeal of the measures are undoubtedly intended to make it easier to do what democrats have promised do do, spend more money, raise taxes to cover it and repeat the cycle. s that recipe for driving our nation deeper and deeper in debt. if we fail to keep our fiscal house in order, it will threat then stability of our economy our national security and the
4:22 pm
american way of life. unfortunately, i believe these rules changes are a threat to that. mr. speaker, i think this point is so important that i want to list out the fiscal responsibility measures that democrats are eliminating. first, democrats are repealing what we call the cut-go under republican majority which meant in order to spend money we had to cut money. democrats are replacing wit a pay-go rule which allows them to offset the cost of measures by raising revenue or taxing americans. they are eliminating the requirement that the house agree by at least three-fifths supermajority to raise revenue through additional federal income tax. this will make it easier for democrats to tax americans to pay for their expensive policies. excuse me. the rules package brings back the so-called gephardt rule and creates a provision that says when the house passes a budget resolution a separate joint resolution suspending the federal debt celling through
4:23 pm
september 30 of that year is deem to have had passed the house. unfortunately, mr. speaker, i think this is emblematic of what the democrats wish to accomplish. the gephrt rule sweeps national debt ceiling under a rug and ensures that democrats will be able to spend with impunity without worrying about hitting the limit on the national credit card. i for one think this is a bad practice and bad policy and will only lead to more and more unnecessary deficit spending. the rules package that we are considering today also authorizes the house to intervene in the texas vs. the united states lawsuit over the legality of the affordable care kt. i cannot think of a single known republican side who wants to give the speaker this authority. the same can be said for the provision thoshesing the i was of legal counsel to explore options for responding to a department of agriculture proposed rule making over snap benefits for able bodied adults.
4:24 pm
inconceivably this provision in the rule is also hopelessly vague and represents a blanket grant of authority to simply do something without saying what. finally and most notably, the democrats are choosing to respond to demands of one wing of their caucus by establishing a select committee on the climate crisis to study and make recommendations on climate change. this committee is ill-conceived from the start. it takes away jurisdiction from standing committees in the house and gives it to a brand new panel rigged with a supermajority of democrats. indeed, we do not know where exactly the jurisdiction of this panel begins and ends since it is conceivable it could dig into all kinds of areas. unlike most other committees in the house this one does not adhere to the negotiated ratio of membership and instead calls for nine democrats and six republicans. the democrats have also failed to tell tell us how 24 new -- how this new panel will be funded where the money will come from or how it will be used.
4:25 pm
i cannot think of a single republican who thinks this is a -- this new panel is a good idea. earlier in my statement i used the phrase skeptical optimism to describe how i'd approach some of the rules changes my friends are proposing. with this proposal i can merely approach it with skepticism. as a member of the appropriations committee i'd be remiss if i didn't shift gears and address the other major proposal covered by the rule. my kem friends are seeking to make ined or thorne floor an appropriations package to reopen government agencies currently affected by the shutdown. while i applaud them for seeking to fully fund the government, they have done so in the worst way possible and i'll be opposing the package. to start, mr. speaker, the democrat are proposing a package of six bills covering the bulk the closed agencies and are proposing to fund them for the full fiscal year. unfortunately what they have done is put up a package of six
4:26 pm
bill pross deuced by the senate. if the house chooses to pass these bills we'll be abrogating any and all ability of the house to affect the final spending package. none of these six bills reflect any work done by the house appropriations committee or the house at large and i for one do not think it wise to surrender all ability to produce a final product like that. our own priorities as a co-equal house of congress will not be represented in this bill and instead we are merely being given the only -- only the opportunity to vote on what the senate has produced. second the democrats are proposing a continuing resolution to fund the department of homeland security through february 8. this again is an ill-conceived idea. it will simply kick the can down the road on fully funding the department through the fiscal year. it does not provide adegreesal money for border security which americans have told us time and time again that they want and need. most notably this bill is part of a package that the senate
4:27 pm
will not pass and the president will not sign. why would we surrender our authority and ability to produce legislative product on a effort that is going nowhere? while i appreciate the attempt by my democratic colleagues to reopen the government, i do not think the package is an plopet way to do so and i would encourage all of my colleagues to oppose it. mr. speaker, in closing, i want to again say how gratified i am that i'll be working closely with my friend from massachusetts during this congress. i have said some critical things about the rule he's placing on the floor but let no one think my disagreements with limb over matters of policy or procedure reflect how i feel about him as a person. as he so kindly noted last week, we candice agree without being disagreeable. i look forward to attempting to live up to those words as we work together in the coming two years. with that, i urge opposition to the rule and i reserve the
4:28 pm
balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my colleague from oklahoma for his kind words. my mother and father are up in the gallery, they're very impressed that you said nice things about me. and i'm going to say nice things about you too but i was saving it to the end to see the tone of your speech. but i appreciate very much what you said. rhett e-- let me just make a couple of statements in response. the gentleman made mention about martial law. yes, there is limited martial law or same-day authority in this package. i'll say to the gentleman, there should be. if there ever was a time to move legislation quickly, it is while nearly 800,000 federal employees including our law enforcement officers like the f.b.i. and d.e.a. and c.b.p. agents are going without a paycheck.
4:29 pm
enough is enough. we need to open the government and same-day authority for appropriations bills only lets us do that as quickly as we are able to. i just want to remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that you had blanket marial law authority before the holidays. i even voted for the rule providing for it. we did that so we could move quickly to make sure hard working americans weren't left without a paycheck over christmas. but what did you do instead of utilizing that same-day authority to consider a bill to keep the government open? that's not what you did. you held an emergency rules committee meeting on a bill to define natural cheese. that was the priority apparently in the rules committee. seriously. this may seem like a novel concept to my republican friends but this is exactly what responsible governance looks like. not having the ability to fund government as expeditiously as possible and clean up this republican mess would be an
4:30 pm
abdication of our duty as a new democratic house majority to keep the lights on in the american people's government. i don't recall, maybe you can correct me, in history when we have ever, you know, started a new congress, you know, in a shutdown that was caused by the previous congress. i would have thought that my friends would have wanted to kind of clean things up before they left town. but they didn't do that. i was here. i was on the floor trying to get the attention of the presiding speaker to allow us to bring up a continuing resolution to keep the government running. i was routinely not recognized. this is crazy. the bills that we're talking about were approved overwhelmingly by either the senate appropriations committee or the entire senate. there's no controversy on these bills. and most of these bills have nothing to do with border security, quite frankly. and yet the president of the
4:31 pm
united states is holding, you know, a big chunk of our government hostage because he's having a temper tantrum and it has to stop. so we are going to do what the american people want us to do we are going to expeditiously bring before this congress legislation to reeep the government. -- to reopen the government. and we hope to d that. i hope my friends on the other side of the aisle will join with us. at this time i want to yield three minutes to the chairwoman from florida, the distinguished chairmanwoman of the any select committee on the climate crisis, ms. castor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida is recognized for three minutes. ms. castor: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to thank my colleague, the house rules chairman, jim mcgovern, for crafting a transformtific rules package that we hope will -- transformtific rules package that we hope will bring confidence. confidence that we can address the challenges that our country faces. whether it's opening the government or it's protecting
4:32 pm
our neighbors who have pre-existing health conditions. and making a statement about ethics in government as a priority. but i want to thank chairman mcgovern and speaker pelosi especially for re-instituting the climate change select committee. a few years ago, in 2007, speaker pelosi instituted the select committee on energy independence and global warming. when the republicans took over in 2010, they dismissed the committee. they wouldn't have hearings. meanwhile, the cost of the changing climate escalated. i come from the state of florida . we're seeing enormous costs. not even counting the extreme weather events. this is a challenge of our time. so in this rules package, the democrats will re-institute a climate change committee called the select committee on the
4:33 pm
climate crisis. in doing so, we intend to press for urgent action in defense of america and our way of life. we want dramatic reductions in carbon pollution. we want to make clean energy a pillar of our economy and create the green jobs of today and the future. you see, we have a moral obligation to our children and future generations to do this. so again, chairman mcgovern, my democratic colleagues, speaker pelosi, thank you for listening, heeding the calls of the american people. we will tackle this challenge and we need your help, america. thank you, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. cole: i'd like to yield three minutes to my good friend, the gentlelady from north carolina. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized for three minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, mr.
4:34 pm
speaker. i thank my colleague for yielding. mr. speaker, on behalf of the students and workers of today and tomorrow, i rise in opposition to this rules package. it's become tradition in the house that when republicans are in the majority, we have the committee on education and the work force. and when the democrats are in the majority, we have the committee on education and labor. some assign political motivations to these names. they point out the old traditional bond between organized labor and the establishment democrat party. but it's far more serious than that. reverting to the committee's old name is choosing to live in the past. republicans value traditions, we value institutions. but we know we cannot afford to go back. changing the committee's name from work force to labor has not only political ramifications, but also reflects our we view our fellow citizens. -- how we view our fellow citizens.
4:35 pm
it says we're interested only in serving some professions. if we don't consider -- if they don't consider themselves laborers, if they choose to identify as part of another demographic or class or if they pursue career changes, they need not look to us. mr. speaker, that should not be the case. republicans on the education and work force committee have stayed true to key principles in this regard. we believe all education is career education. we believe every american has god-given talents which they should have the freedom and opportunity to pursue. and we believe that all work is valuable. the word labor harkins back to a time when work was little more than a burden to carry, not a means to a brighter future. not a manifestation of a woman or man's talents and skills. no one wants to move backward. we may have dinner ideas about how to move -- different ideas about how to move forward, but
4:36 pm
no one should want to turn back the clock. at least no one on this side of the aisle. words matter. the name of such a vitally important body as the committee on education and work force matters very much. we must govern with an eye toward the future and not be bound to an unhealthy allegiance to those who would keep us in the past. for that reason, among many others, we must oppose this rules package. and i too want to give my congratulations to the gentleman from massachusetts and tell him i admire him very much for his passion and commitment and look forward to working with him in his new capacity. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i want to thank the gentlelady for her kind comments. i agree with her that words matter. i would hope that she and others on the other side of the aisle would remember that the name of
4:37 pm
our party is the democratic party. not the democrat party. we would appreciate the respect of calling us by what our real name is. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: when we defeat the previous question i will offer an amendment to the resolution. i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment and extraneous materials in the record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cole: thank you. i now yield to the gentleman from oregon, to explain the amendment for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for three minutes. mr. walden: thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you to mr. cole and others. i come here today with a very simple request. and in the spirit of this new congress and a fresh start. let us come together and make sure that those americans with pre-existing health conditions are protected. period. republicans have language --
4:38 pm
language to protect people with pre-existing health conditions which we believe should be included in this rules package. that can only happen if the new democratic majority allows it. let me explain why it's needed at this time. last year 20 state attorneys general filed a lawsuit against obamacare arguing that the law's individual mandate is unconstitutional and therefore the entire law is unconstitutional. on december 14 of last year, a federal judge in texas agreed with the plaintiffs and issued a summary judgment stating, and i quote, the individual mandate is essential to and insevrable from the other provisions of the a.c.a. therefore the judge ruled the entire affordable care act is unconstitutional. it's important to note that the judge's decision does not immediately end obamacare and will not effect the insurance coverage or premiums for 2019. in fact, the judge has ordered a stay of his earlier ruling pending appeal. additionally, the ruling is
4:39 pm
already being appealed by other attorneys general from states that had intervened in the lawsuit to defend obamacare. and that means several legal steps remain before the courts reach a final conclusion where the ruling could be reversed. even though these state a.g.'s are already intervening in the case, the democratic rules package includes a provision authorizing the house general counsel to also intervene in the case. that effort does not preserve pre-existing condition protections. the republican proposal would. put simply, the texas court ruled that obamacare's individual mandate is unconstitutional. now, we also know it didn't work. the individual mandate didn't live up to its promise. we were told that the individual mandate would encourage enrollment. in fact, the congressional budget office argued 24 million americans would enroll in obamacare by 2018. but less than half that number actually enrolled and paid for their coverage. 12 million others paid the penalty or claimed an exemption.
4:40 pm
moreover, those that have signed up have seen skyrocketing premiums and thousands of dollars in deductibles. pre-existing condition protections are greatly diminished when you cannot afford your premiums or deductibles. republicans have long supported pre-existing condition protections for americans. in fact, in 2016 our health care agenda, a better way, our vision for a confident america, we clearly stated and i quote, no american should ever be denied coverage or face a coverage exclusion on the basis of a pre-existing condition. our plan ensures every american healthier -- american, healthy or sick, will know they be never be denied a plan from a health insurer. it also was one of my first bills as energy of the health and commerce committee. it required health insurers to allow every eligible applicant to enroll in their plans, regardless of factors like health status, age or income. and it also prohibited benefit exclusions and banned health
4:41 pm
status underwriting. mr. cole: i yield an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is yielded an additional 30 secondsful mr. walden: thank you. effectively that would ensure these important patient protections if obamacare were no longer the law. during the floor debate on the ahca, the leaders of our party made clear we supported protections for those with pre-existing conditions. that is our position. period. so today we once again reinforce support of people with pre-existing conditions. our language simply says congress should produce legislation that guarantees no american citizen can be denied health insurance coverage as a result of a previous illness or health status. and it guarantees no american citizen can be charged higher premiums or cost sharing as a result of a previous illness or health status. thus ensuring affordable health coverage for those with pre-existing conditions. we can only offer that if the democratic majority allows it and we would do so if the previous question is defeated. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i
4:42 pm
have to be honest. i'm almost speechless. the gentleman from oregon takes my breath away. with his previous question. amendment. i mean, i mean, i want to remind the gentleman. it was the democrats that actually put in protections for people with pre-existing conditions. we did so over the objections of the republicans. and for almost a decade now, my present -- bhile while my friends were in charge, they time and time and time again tried to take away people's health care protections. including protections for people with pre-existing conditions. this lawsuit, this judgment in texas that recently came about that threatens people's health care protections was filed by the republicans. i mean, they have been in charge of the house and the senate and the white house and they have done nothing to protect people with pre-existing conditions.
4:43 pm
they have just tried to take these protections away. i get it. you heard loud and clear in the last election that people don't agree with you. mr. cole: will the gentleman yield? mr. mcgovern: i won't yield to the gentleman at this point. that they don't agree with you. we are going to do everything we can to protect people with pre-existing conditions and to expand health care protections for everybody in this country. because we believe that health care is a right. and not a privilege. so when i hear my friends come here with a procedural motion, you know, that somehow they want to be the champions for people who are worried about their health care coverage, it's laughable. i yield to the gentleman. mr. walden: i appreciate your comments. i don't agree with them obviously. i haven't heard your objection to the language we proposed to offer to your rules package that already has different health care provisions in it. is there anything -- mr. mcgovern: i reclaim -- we're going to do something -- we're going to do something that my friends on the other side of the aisle did not do. we are going to legislate in a
4:44 pm
professional and proper manner. and as we debate health care in the future, it is going to go through regular order. we're going to take on immediately right now some of these court cases that we think have -- that present a danger to the american people. but i don't -- the idea that my republican friends are coming to the floor saying let's protect people with pre-existing conditions, you know what, the american people don't believe it. that was the message in the last election. that was the message -- because they know that dozens and dozens and dozens of times republicans came to this floor, used every trick in the book to try to undo the affordable care act, and thankfully you failed. we put this -- these protections in place and we will make sure they stay in place. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield two minutes to my good friend from the great state of arizona, mr. schweikert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for minutes.
4:45 pm
mr. schweikert: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. cole, thank you. i'll try to do this quickly. we're removing in the democratic party rule package, i want to be appropriate and sensitive, macroeconomic analysis. ok. now, we all know right now the methodology used at joint tax c.b.o., they do some of it no matter what. has long before it was put in the rules years ago. my great concern is by the removal, i actually think we're sort of being a bit anti-math, anti-science, anti-openness, anti-facts. because walk through a couple examples with me. tomorrow we double the tax on cigarettes. do you get double the tax rev snue of course not. people stop -- revenue? of course not. people stop smoking. well, should we know if there is a green agenda, when we're going to see pay-go numbers, are you allowed to do macroeconomic analysis on that and tell us
4:46 pm
what the economic effects, in other words, policy matters, and if we're going to engage in policy around here that changes the economic growth rates, that also changes tax revenues, for the positive or the negative, should we be honest about that? the rule package here strips the requirement that on important legislation we get a macroeconomic analysis. and that's just my concern. for all of us who make public policy, we should have honest math and we should have math to understand the cascade effect, what are the effects on the economy. it's just if we're going to make public policy, let's have math that backs it up. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: just to respond to the gentleman, i appreciate his point but i want to remind him that while his party was in power, time and time again, i
4:47 pm
think i've lost count of how many bills came to the floor without a c.b.o. score, never mind a dynamic score. and you know, serving on the rule committees i know of at least 68 bills in this last congress that came to the rules committee that never had a hearing. and the -- or markup in committee of jurisdiction. so we're going to go back to the committee process. we're going to make committees do their work. we're going to require that there be hearings on bills, markups on bills and that this place behave in the manner the american people expect it to. with that, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserve. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: i'd like to yield two minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from texas, mr. conaway. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mr. conaway: both the chairman and ranking member of the rules committee have addressed a rule tucked away on page 31 with respect to going after the secretary of agriculture's
4:48 pm
attempt it is change the rules with respect to snap. a good colleague from massachusetts is a master at cloaking this issue. any change to snap. as if republicans are beating up on poor people. mr. speaker, this rule that the secretary of agriculture is proposing mirrors the house requirements with respect to changing waivers on snap that this house passed back in june, the house version of the farm bill. throughout the entire conversation i had with our senate colleagues on negotiating the conference report, the senate ag chairman and the ranking member, particularly the ranking member, the democrat, said that they had all the authority they wanned to do in the house version and therefore the house bill was unnecessary. this rule addresses able bodied adults, between think ages of 18 and 49, without dependents. most folks would look at them and say that's a worker. a waiver abuse, waiving the 0-hour workweek requirement has
4:49 pm
been abused by the system of abused to the point that up until last september, the entire state of california was under work waiver and we got a 4% unemployment rate across this nation. it makes no sense. so what secretary perdue does is say, if you're willing to help yourself working 20 hours a week you'll be able to stay on food stamps unlimited. if you're unwilling to help yourself, demonstrate that you're going to help yourself, your -- you'll be limited to three months out of every 36. the impact it would have is this. the youtube video with the 27-year-old surfer who loves to surf, doesn't like to work but he's on food stamps. the california waiver allows him to stay on food stamps and he doesn't have to work my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and my colleagues in the senate would voraciously defend would defend the law 20 hours a week, they don't want to defend it. this would require able body
4:50 pm
adults without dements to work. oppose this rule and oppose the underlying rule package. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expire thsmed egentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i want to ensure the gentleman from texas, the now-ranking member of the ag committee. this measure wasn't tucked away, we did a press release on it. we want everyone to know we're going to hold the administration accountable if they go against what the congress passed in the farm bill. the congress didn't pass what the gentleman said. my friend from texas said in an interview last year the secretary of agriculture doesn't have the authority to fix paires, maybe he's changed his mind. if the secretary is watching, i want to be clear. if in fact he or this administration go after poor people if they try to take away their food, if they try to undercut their food security, we are coming after them. we are going to hold them accountable. the days of turning a blind eye to attacks on poor people are over.
4:51 pm
plain and simple. and so this is not a provision that was tucked away, it was not a provision that was hidden. we did a press release on it. i want everybody to know about it. with that, i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: i'm prepared to close if my friend is. with that, mr. speaker, in closing i want to begin again by congratulating my good friend on assuming this very important position of responsibility as chairman of the house rules committee. it's particularly, i think, notable that he began his career in public service as a staff member on this very committee. and so i think moving from staff member to ranking member and to chairman is something my friend should be very proud of and all of us in the house should be proud of as well. wonderful things about him. now, while the rules package
4:52 pm
includes some very good ideas, i'm going to urge all members to oppose the rule. some of the provisions obviously that i mentioned in my remarks, republicans certainly can support. unfortunately, however, includes too many measures that we cannot. the rule today removes important fiscal responsibility measures from the house rules, establishes a partisan climate committee and grants the speaker the power to intervene in a lawsuit over the legality of the a.c.a. it also makes in order an appropriations package, frankly as an appropriator, i cannot support. the idea that the house would simply yield to the senate and accept without change bills that the senate has passed even though frankly there have been ongoing conferences and many changes have been agreed to is something that i think we should never do in this particular body. for these and the reasons i have discussed here, i urge a no vote on the rule.
4:53 pm
mr. speaker, i urge no on the previous question, no on the underlying measure, and i want to yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i want to congratulate the new ranking member of the rules committee, mr. cole. it has been a pleasure to be down here debating with him here today and it's kind of strange to close debate, i kind of like it. haven't been able to do it far long time. but we have worked side-by-side on this committee for many years. we've also worked in this congress on a lot -- in congress on a lot of important issues we both care about. like the authorization of the use of military force. and i appreciate his work on the appropriations committee. nobody knows more about the appropriations process or respects that process more than the gentleman from oklahoma. and he's not only a colleague but i consider him a friend. we dent agreen everything. when we disagree, congressman
4:54 pm
cole is always respectful. as i said before, he disagrees without being disagreeable. all while still fighting for the ideas and issue he is cares deeply about. and frankly, in this day and age, that's a breath of fresh air. i look forward to continuing to work with him and the -- on the committee and this congress. and i expect that we will be able to forge a relationship and hopefully be able to do things differently. that's my hope. now mr. speaker, these rules that are contained in the rules package are historic. there's never been a process like this one before. and there's never been a rules package like this before. it is unprecedented. our speaker, who i'm proud to have just elected, tasked me with soliciting members' feedback for this rules package months ago and working with our members of our committee, you know, we did just that. i thank her geffen for the opportunity, i thank her -- i
4:55 pm
think her leadership on this has been extraordinary. she's empowered all our members to get involved and led a collaborative process that gave all members a voice. these changes incorporate ideas from every corner of our caucus. and as i said, there were many ideas that have come from republicans as well. and they come from members that represent urban areas and suburban areas and rural areas. i'm a progressive. i'm a liberal my colleagues on the other side know that. and there are changes here that we've been fighting for for years. i know my republican colleagues wouldn't have included some of these priorities like health care and climate change if they were drafting their own package and that's ok, i get it. the american people have entrusted democrats to run this institution and so this is a rules package the majority should be proud to support. i hope some of my friends in the minority will as well. there are major reforms to legislative process that even
4:56 pm
they agree should be made. there's a bipartisan agreement that we need to change how this place is run. this is our chance. on day one of this congress, let's vote for this rule and the underlying rules package. and for measures ending the trump shutdown so we can get the american people who have been displaced back to work and get them a paycheck. and give them the kind of congress that they've demanded. mr. speaker, the reason why i also think this deserves bipartisan support is because we are trying, you know , in good faith, to have a more accommodating rules committee. to have a more accommodating process. and the previous congress, which unfortunately went down in history as the most closed congress in american history, members of both sides, not just democrats but republicans, were routinely shut out. i know my colleague from oklahoma didn't always approve of that tactic but the bottom line is that was the fact.
4:57 pm
and i think that needs to change. and we need to be willing on our side to allow ideas that we may have issues with. we may disagree with. you don't always have to rig the rules in order to get the product, the end product you want. so i believe in a fair fight and we believe important ideas, even ideas we disagree with, owlingt to be brought to the floor. when we disagree with them, we'll fight you and try to defeat you on the floor. out of respect and out of the belief that everybody in this chamber matters, we need to change the way we have done business. i ask thethat spirit, members of this house, both democrats and republican, vote on this rule, to support the underlying rules package. with that, i yield back. i yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution.
4:58 pm
i'm out of practice. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts yields back the balance of his time. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the previous question is ordered. mr. cole: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
4:59 pm
5:00 pm
5:01 pm
5:02 pm
5:03 pm
5:04 pm
5:05 pm
5:06 pm
5:07 pm
5:08 pm
5:09 pm
5:10 pm
5:11 pm
5:12 pm
5:13 pm
5:14 pm
5:15 pm
5:16 pm
5:17 pm
5:18 pm
5:19 pm
5:20 pm
5:21 pm
5:22 pm
5:23 pm
5:24 pm
5:25 pm
5:26 pm
5:27 pm
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 233. the nays are 197. the previous question is ordered. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. cole: mr. speaker, i offer a motion to commit. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. cole of oklahoma
5:28 pm
moves that the resolution, house resolution 5, be committed to a select committee composed of the majority leader and minority leader with instructions to report back to the same back to the house forthwith with only an amendment provided at the end providing for consideration of house resolution 11, introdeuced by mr. mccarthy of california. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to commit. the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. mr. cole: mr. speaker, on that i demand the yangs yeas and ays. -- i demand the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the noes have it. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: mr. speaker, on that i'd like to request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device.
5:29 pm
this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
5:30 pm
5:31 pm
5:32 pm
5:33 pm
5:34 pm
5:35 pm
5:36 pm
5:37 pm
5:38 pm
5:39 pm
5:40 pm
5:41 pm
5:42 pm
5:43 pm
5:44 pm
5:45 pm
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 197. the nays are 232. the motion is not adopted.
5:46 pm
the question is on adoption of the resolution. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is -- mr. cole: mr. speaker, on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
5:47 pm
5:48 pm
5:49 pm
5:50 pm
5:51 pm
5:52 pm
5:53 pm
5:54 pm
5:55 pm
5:56 pm
5:57 pm
5:58 pm
5:59 pm
6:00 pm
6:01 pm
6:02 pm
6:03 pm
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 234, the nays are 194. the resolution is adopt and the motion to reconsider is laid pon the table. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker. a message from the senate. sekou: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. sekou: i'm directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has agreed to h.res. 2, informing that a quorum they have senate is asemidouble -- assembled. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. mcgovern: i ask unanimous consent that the house stand in recess subject to the call of the chair. the speaker pro tempore: without object

54 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on